I spent about a month tinkering around with a design for a gun only to realize that i basically unknowingly redesigned the matrix. Along the way, i was playing with an idea for a 2-stage 3-way valve, that would use a very small movement of an actuating rod to move a larger spool, in effect letting a very small motion operate a relatively high flowing valve.
After i realized i was spending time designing something thats already existed, i started considering the "amp valve" as i was calling it as a possible cocker upgrade.
Im sort of shaky on whether or not it would work, and right now i lack the capability to develop a prototype to find out. Hopefully soon i might be purchasing a small lathe to tinker with some parts for various guns, but right now its just a concept.
Anyway, since nobody really wants mechanical cockers anymore, and since the people here on automags are some of the smartest folks on any paintball forums, i figured i would see who could find some flaws in my design. Im absolutely sure theres things im overlooking, or flat out wrong about, so have at it.
Heres a labeled sketch i scanned in and cleaned up to show to some other folks:
The general concept is the actuating rod when pushed, moves the upper of the small o-rings on the bottom of the rod past the pilot air hole which would be intentionally drilled as small as possible for the smallest possible travel. Air released from the pilot would fill the chamber of the valve below the spool, forcing it up like a ram. The spool itself would function as the 3-way valve. When the pressure on the rod is let off, the spring would return the rod to its rest position (retained by a small snap ring or some other device), the air holding the spool would vent out exhaust holes at the top, and another spring would return the spool to its rest position.
Im not even sure if this would be worth building. Maybe just to do it and have it on my cocker for kicks (if it works), but i imagine it would be too expensive to make to sell. The idea would be to combine a very small throw with large flow across the 3-way itself, but i imagine the orracle and CT 3-way's accomplish much the same effect using the "lots of tiny holes" method. Not to mention the adjustable timing on the 3-way is just cool.
Things im not sure about: I imagine the diameter of the rod, compared to the diameter of the hole in the spool would determine the speed of exhausting the pilot air to return the valve. I also thought perhaps air would get between the exhaust flare at the top of the rod, and the top of the spool and equalize pressure on both sides of the spool, returning it, so i thought perhaps an o-ring mounted somehow in the top of the spool to seal againt the flare would help. But i might be insane, and it might not be necessary.
Anyway, thoughts?
After i realized i was spending time designing something thats already existed, i started considering the "amp valve" as i was calling it as a possible cocker upgrade.
Im sort of shaky on whether or not it would work, and right now i lack the capability to develop a prototype to find out. Hopefully soon i might be purchasing a small lathe to tinker with some parts for various guns, but right now its just a concept.
Anyway, since nobody really wants mechanical cockers anymore, and since the people here on automags are some of the smartest folks on any paintball forums, i figured i would see who could find some flaws in my design. Im absolutely sure theres things im overlooking, or flat out wrong about, so have at it.
Heres a labeled sketch i scanned in and cleaned up to show to some other folks:
The general concept is the actuating rod when pushed, moves the upper of the small o-rings on the bottom of the rod past the pilot air hole which would be intentionally drilled as small as possible for the smallest possible travel. Air released from the pilot would fill the chamber of the valve below the spool, forcing it up like a ram. The spool itself would function as the 3-way valve. When the pressure on the rod is let off, the spring would return the rod to its rest position (retained by a small snap ring or some other device), the air holding the spool would vent out exhaust holes at the top, and another spring would return the spool to its rest position.
Im not even sure if this would be worth building. Maybe just to do it and have it on my cocker for kicks (if it works), but i imagine it would be too expensive to make to sell. The idea would be to combine a very small throw with large flow across the 3-way itself, but i imagine the orracle and CT 3-way's accomplish much the same effect using the "lots of tiny holes" method. Not to mention the adjustable timing on the 3-way is just cool.
Things im not sure about: I imagine the diameter of the rod, compared to the diameter of the hole in the spool would determine the speed of exhausting the pilot air to return the valve. I also thought perhaps air would get between the exhaust flare at the top of the rod, and the top of the spool and equalize pressure on both sides of the spool, returning it, so i thought perhaps an o-ring mounted somehow in the top of the spool to seal againt the flare would help. But i might be insane, and it might not be necessary.
Anyway, thoughts?
.
) You'll see me around Deep Blue and the Workshop a lot, I love thinking over ideas and stuff. You might want to check into a thread of mine about no bolt springs for mags if you want to. A lot of good discussion going on, plus I'd like to see some of your ideas. BTW, pretty good for a 4th post!
Comment